If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

What is new is the arrogant attitude that we puny little humans can somehow control the warming cycles of a planet, as opposed to doing the intelligent thing and figuring out practical solutions for adaptation.

EXACTLY!

Understanding climate as little as we do, chasing so-called correctives could backfire and hasten the next Ice Age.

Comment

Molecule'' as a concept doesn't go back 200 years, much less the measure of resonance....

perhaps an analogy....
Picture the atmosphere as a thin 400 mile thick blanket. Picture the C02 molecule as a poppy seed floating in it.
now picture the thermal return as arrows fired through the blanket. double the molecules, and the chances that the arrow will hit one over the 400 miles also increases.https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-war...erature-change

With the International Space Station orbiting at about 200 miles, claiming the atmosphere is 400 miles "thick" might be either error of facts or disinformation ... The "thick" only goes to about 75 miles ...

The atmosphere has a mass of about 5.15×1018 kg,[9] three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface. The atmosphere becomes thinner and thinner with increasing altitude, with no definite boundary between the atmosphere and outer space. The Kármán line, at 100 km (62 mi), or 1.57% of Earth's radius, is often used as the border between the atmosphere and outer space. Atmospheric effects become noticeable during atmospheric reentry of spacecraft at an altitude of around 120 km (75 mi). Several layers can be distinguished in the atmosphere, based on characteristics such as temperature and composition.
....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Your chart compacts things a bit, but examining as close as possible, seems the CO2 levels/peaks lag BEHIND the temperature peaks which would suggest that it's the other way around, rising temps cause rising CO2.

The low points of both also seem to fit the cycle of glaciation, Ice Ages, and again the question is which direction do we want to go, especially when recent findings show Ica Ages can onset with decades, possibly years. We may want to hold off on the geo-engineering for a while until we know a bit more.
...
The Quaternary Glaciation / Quaternary Ice Age started about 2.58 million years ago at the beginning of the Quaternary Period when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.

Comment

Pumping out greenhouse gasses without evaluating corrective measures is merely a search for a 'free lunch.'There is ' no free lunch- but there are intelligent methodologies...

Evaluating corrective measures is not the same thing as implementing hasty and unevaluated measures, which is
what many of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd want to do. When you don't know if something is really broken or fully understand how it is broken, corrective measures illconceived could be as bad or worse than doing nothing "corrective" that, which might actually backfire.

The greenhouse gases (and that's not a correct metaphor BTW) amount to a few grains out of a five pound sack of sugar.
What part of 0.05% of "chemical solution" eludes you and others?
What part of one out 2,500 eluded you?

It's the entire atmosphere that is slightly warmer in a rather short geological time-span, and the mechanism for heating the other 99.95% doesn't balance out as the two small slices of IR temporarily detained by CO2.

Comment

Evaluating corrective measures is not the same thing as implementing hasty and unevaluated measures, which is
what many of the pro-ACC/AGW crowd want to do. When you don't know if something is really broken or fully understand how it is broken, corrective measures illconceived could be as bad or worse than doing nothing "corrective" that, which might actually backfire.

The greenhouse gases (and that's not a correct metaphor BTW) amount to a few grains out of a five pound sack of sugar.What part of 0.05% of "chemical solution" eludes you and others?
What part of one out 2,500 eluded you?

It's the entire atmosphere that is slightly warmer in a rather short geological time-span, and the mechanism for heating the other 99.95% doesn't balance out as the two small slices of IR temporarily detained by CO2.

what ELUDES ME IS :
why you refuse to visit the NOAA website for your answers

the bolded seems somewhat bellicose, and has no relation to what I wrote.
a simple home experiment in Molecular resonance.
Deep freeze an ice cube, and place it with insulated tongs in - your microwave. the microwaves will not melt the cube, until the ambient air converts ice to water, which will heat- then melt the ice.
the resonance of molecular water changes when the cube freezes.

The government is also aware that electric vehicles could help solve some of China’s most pressing energy and environmental concerns: Massive air pollution chokes its major cities, national security officials are worried about how much oil the country imports and China is now the nation contributing most to global climate change emissions.

Energy analysts have made the point again and again that fossil fuels, not renewable energy, most benefit from supportive public policy. Yet this fact, so inconvenient to the conservative worldview, never seems to sink in to the energy debate in a serious way.

Adding everything up: $14.7 billion in federal subsidies and $5.8 billion in state-level incentives, for a total of $20.5 billion annually in corporate welfare.

Of that total, 80 percent goes to oil and gas, 20 percent to coal. On the right, subsidies are broken down by stage of production. Extraction gets the most.

Point is that all national policy is subsidized - that's why it is called policy

HighAdmiralSnowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

Note that most are hybrids, meaning they can still be used as classic cars - if needed, to travel long distances.

I couldn't find a more recent chart, but things really haven't changed.

Battery cars are not popular. If the government wasn't forcing them down people's throats, they wouldn't even be made at all. Since you cannot get around the chemistry and physics of batteries both of which are well grounded and complete areas of science-- sure you might come up with a better version of an extant battery, or a new chemical combination, but it will still put out around TWO volts per cell, and cell size will still determine the ampacity / charge life of the battery-- you are never, ever going to get a truly practical battery car.

On the other hand, once fuel cell technology using liquid hydrogen is fully practical and reliable, battery cars are finished. They can't compete.

2 likes

Comment

what ELUDES ME IS :
why you refuse to visit the NOAA website for your answers

What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.

the bolded seems somewhat bellicose, and has no relation to what I wrote.
a simple home experiment in Molecular resonance.

A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...

Deep freeze an ice cube, and place it with insulated tongs in - your microwave. the microwaves will not melt the cube, until the ambient air converts ice to water, which will heat- then melt the ice.
the resonance of molecular water changes when the cube freezes.

Please explain better how this relates to one part of 2,500 CO2 transfers heat to the other 2,499 other element molecules in the atmosphere ...

Comment

What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.

WELL- GOOD FOR YOU, -I SUPPOSE

The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

Comment

What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.

A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...

Please explain better how this relates to one part of 2,500 CO2 transfers heat to the other 2,499 other element molecules in the atmosphere ...

Having a lot lately with other organizational demands on my time, plus home yard/garden/household chores and limited patience with obscure and imprecise science references, etc. ...

W

[/QUOTE
W

ell - this was the "trout fishing in 'Yellowstone park' and associated recipes thread', so one shouldn't be surprised if a discussion of "litters of soda water' sort of, like, dies on the table...

Be sure to have your soda bottle experiment peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The NOAA may be able to aid you with this' if you ask nicely…..

The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

1 like

Comment

A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...

Be sure to have your soda bottle experiment peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The NOAA may be able to aid you with this' if you ask nicely…..

An invalid experiment. In order to make the experiment work you need to have your "soda bottle" at the correct air pressure for the altitude you are simulating. Better, stratify the pressure in the bottle to simulate from sea level to say 100,000 feet. Then put the bottle in a vacuum chamber so it is unaffected by outside temperatures except by radiation.

Now, that simulates the atmosphere of the planet.

Comment

It is sufficiently unproven that we shouldn't rush to destroy the global economy with half-assed attempts to "fix" the problem, particularly when those recommended solutions (solar / wind, battery cars, mass transit) are all proven economic failures.

that is a very good point. \there is an argument that we should accept a moderate amount of greenhouse gas warming, and counterbalance it with sulfite aerosol cooling. then, if we enter a period of global cooling, cutting back on sulfite usage will balance out then cooling . the eruption of Tambora in 1814 bought us the 'year without summer.' that we don't need again...

with over seven billion people on lifeboat earth, rational tradeoffs are the best we can hope for

Although brook trout populations are under stress in their native range, they are considered an invasive species where they have been introduced outside their historic native range.[41][42][43] In the northern Rocky Mountains, non-native brook trout are considered a significant contributor to the decline or extirpation of native cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) in headwater streams.[44] Non-native brook trout populations have been subject to eradication programs in efforts to preserve native species.[45][46] In Yellowstone National Park, anglers may take an unlimited number of non-native brook trout in some drainages. In the Lamar River drainage, a mandatory kill regulation for any brook trout caught is in effect.[47] In Europe, introduced brook trout, once established, have had negative impacts on growth rates of native brown trout (S. trutta).[13]

so you can, this year, harvest brook trout caviar in October without guilt, or having the cuffs slapped on you...

Several authors have warned that climate scientists sometimes exhibit a tendency to...

[...]

We recognize that there are disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics, the most important of which is that codes of ethics are typically written into the laws that govern licensed professions such as engineering. Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical...

There are no "disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics" in the private sector.

If one could "legally compel a research scientist to be ethical," at least one of the authors of this paper would likely be wearing an orange jumpsuit with a number on it.

From wikip[edia:
Watts's blog has been criticized for inaccuracy. The Guardian columnist George Monbiot described WUWT as "highly partisan and untrustworthy".[32]Leo Hickman, at The Guardian's Environment Blog, also criticized Watts's blog, stating that Watts "risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary."[33]